A bit of what we've already seen, but then a bit more on the basic framework: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...l_reduced2.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/QrbwKCm.png

I think this is a valuable takeaway:

Personally I dislike the use of Portland's South Waterfront as a model for Austin's South Waterfront. My wife and I own a second home near Portland's South Waterfront.

The main problem in the comparison is that the PDX development is a monolithic build of a new district, reclaimed at once from some prior low-density use (AFAIK). It's a large, dense buildout, probably by one master developer. The result is something completely new, not organically developed within the character of the city.

I am pro-density, and not against such things in general, but PDX's version is cut off and separated from the rest of the city. It feels like a residential amusement park with tall buildings, some nice restaurants...and then you have to get in your car to get to real downtown or anywhere else.

The fabric of the old and new will surely expand and meld together, but we're not there yet. This is what makes this a troublesome comparison. The photos look great, the financial aspects will be appealing to developers, esp. if they can get the city to support the model.

Meanwhile, back in Austin, the South Waterfront is not a sleepy area yet to be reclaimed. It is a busy crossroads, that already is and will always be tied to downtown and South Congress. I'd prefer to see comparisons to downtown revitalization efforts that have encouraged/maximized private investment and density one structure at a time.

Also, just food for thought - the days of cheap dollars -might- be waning. QE tightening and future interest rate hikes may show that our boom has in part been fueled by cheap money for institutional investors. South Waterfront may not have the right properties available soon enough.

Jngreenlee has a point, the South Shore is not like say Green or Seaholm for example, it's already a bustling part of the city and it's neither a quiet empty place nor a neighborhood. I like the idea of improving the infrastructure, but rather than create large swaths of set development, the area should be built piece by piece depending on the particular needs and demands. The overall area can be guided to a specific outcome but if large parts are predesigned then that sets a cap on density right from the beginning. This area is basically an extension of Downtown. It needs to be treated as such whether the surrounding NIMBY's like it or not.

It needs some direction, though. We don't want another Rainey Street area with fugly parking garages and no street level retail.

I agree, guidelines should be set as to how the buildings should interact with the streetscape.

Am I the only one who thinks this would be a perfect spot for a new stadium that could host an MLS team in the future?
1. The MLS has stated that they are looking for their expansion teams to have a stadium downtown.
2. This is one of the last areas downtown that would be large enough to hold a stadium.
3. With a new bridge crossing the river at that location, it would be perfect for tying into and create public transportation options.
4. This stadium could be used for many other events and Austin needs a large concert venue downtown, especially with the Erwin Center closing in the future. leaving some (but not many) surface parking lots would keep areas for events like ROT Rally and others.
5. Many stadium projects now are built as mixed use developments, so you could have dense use around the stadium. Look at Detroit's plan for the new Red Wings stadium project. And Minnesota's new FB stadium
6. And finally... think about the potential views from the stadium...

The traffic that would cause

That PDF was awesome, informative and comprehensive. I have to say, my single favorite feature outlined was most detailed around pages 46-50.

The central "rambla" they intend to build is great for a number of reasons. It will give the South Shore area a unique and fantastic public space which is sorely lacking that far east on Riverside. If executed correctly, it could become an iconic space associated with the city. I imagine one would look straight down it and across the river to land their eye directly upon the to-be-built Waller Park Place and Fairmont projects. One might even catch an urban rail train crossing the river in the foreground. Basically, all kinds of awesome, a must-catch photo of Austin circa 2023 ;)

I agree with you. In fact I think they stated in a past article that the AAS site is one of the possibilities. I doubt traffic would be any worse than when there are other major events like at Auditorium Shores. If mass transit is done right then there shouldn't be a major traffic issue.

I'm with you on this! Austin is a great demographic fit for MLS and a downtown stadium is a must to land a franchise. I think just east of I-35 would work as well but I don't know if there is large enough tract that isn't already being developed/planned for development.

Welcome to SSP ClendonRoss, I take it your a soccer fan. Feel free to post any news or info regarding the Austin Aztex, please share it with us.

I found a few more renderings at a UT site.

Connecting Water to Water: A Sustainable Vision for Austin's South Central Waterfront District


https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=SLy_-0VT



https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=syNhH4sR



https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=up1OYedS



https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=Te79NCJe

Those arch bridges in the first rendering look to be I-35. That'd be a pretty cool aesthetic addition if they ever needed to replace the bridges. Also, I really like the smaller HEB concept as shown in the third rendering. As downtown densifies (as well as the south shore central area), that'd be a great addition.

I think that's supposed to be the bridge that connects the South Shore to Trinity Street on the North Shore.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore01.jpg



http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore02.jpg

I think the bridge went out with the bid last year?

There are a couple of interesting concepts shown but it's hard to take any of it seriously when they've included, in the second illustration, the annihilation of any trace of the hike-and-bike trail, along with the removal of all vegetation right down to the waterfront. I mean... how can their ideas be taken seriously if they're so divorced from reality?

https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=syNhH4sR

Can you imagine... "Yeah, we're going to just pave everything, concrete right up to the water, no trees, no trails, it's gonna be awesome." I guess they could move the trail up to Riverside at that spot. It's like something the Army Corps of Engineers would have come up with in 1960.

:previous: It's only along a small portion of the trail, though. (Look for the red mark.) The image is a screen shot of a pdf file on the same site where I found the renderings.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...g?t=1428779982

They might have considered it as a place where people could put their canoes/kayaks in the lake.

At any rate, it was done by one of several teams of students at UT so it may not happen.

I would actually advocate for a small section of the trail in that area to be more mixed use in its approach, just like this proposal gets at.

Those steps would make a good impromptu amphitheater if they'd include a stage/bandstand on the river side. Wouldn't be very comfortable in the day from May to September, though. Grand Rapids has a smaller version on their river. Design it right and you could enjoy a concert from the water, too. Probably a stupid idea.